I'd call it a bug. If we don't fix it, I think that our habit of creating incentives towards outcomes that nobody actually wants will eventually kill us.
See this is what I don't get. This effects big organizations like this, there should be a class action lawsuit for these criminals LLM and Memory companies.
"Provide a good ENOUGH service to keep [you] coming back."
The "ENOUGH" is the essential word you didn't include. They don't care about "good". They care about your money and the least quality they can provide to continue to get it.
I agree completely and have said similar. Yet this is what happens when supply tries to catch up to demand. There were not enough software chefs to keep up with the patrons appetites. We started minting more cooks. Instead of Culinary Institute of America candidates and autodidacts, we got what the customers wanted: people who would just churn out more.
Blame the patrons for demanding more with little care to the quality.
I mostly gave up on software development roles in business when the vast majority of developers and, particularly management and executives, made clear that they couldn't give a fuck about craftsmanship. It was just about shipping, good, bad or otherwise.
AI in software development predates on that appetite for MORE at any cost. When the business doesn't really care about quality, because, let's be honest, most don't, this is what you get. You get massive volumes of garbage.
I had to unfollow a coworker who was starting a female inspiring coaching career by constantly pushing messages like created by thus CringeBot while adding photos in bikinis. On LinkedIn.
That's what the words say, how much of it is authentic is still a mystery to me.
Basically a bunch of sales, business consultants and HR people developed their own language and took over LinkedIn. They know it's bullshit, we know it's bullshit, but apparently there's enough money to be made doing this that it's worth the time. A couple of people I went to high school with dropped regular corporate jobs to do this stuff, and I know they're too smart to take it all literally.
I can only imagine it's like the famous Mackenzie interview, where they ask you to explain something you can't possibly know and judge you on how persuasive your bullshit is. They're all just showing off their sleazy salesmanship/thought leadership/persuasive abilities and through that conveying some sort of value, and presumably more productive conversations happen offline as a result.
How many of them source to real humans, though... who can tell anymore.
That number is certainly non-zero, though. To a first approximation every stupid thing you can imagine happens. But it may not happen as much as the bot engagement army makes you think it does.
reply